Now, I like online churches – I’ve studied and written about and lived with online churches for many years, as an academic and a participant. So how does someone like Ed Stetzer – American pastor, church planter, president of a research company, Visiting Professor in missiology at two different seminaries – come to be so hostile about them?

Ed is, he assures us, a big fan of the internet:

“If a church is not online, then it is not actually engaging the culture. A church needs to be where the people gather and they are online and on social media sites.”

We should pause here for a moment. That’s a terrible starting place for any internet theology. Lots of people spend time online, but people with internet access are not “the culture”. Every church needs to work out what culture they are ministering to, and that doesn’t mean every church should communicate to the same people in the same way. That’s an issue some of you might disagree with me on!

Moving along, we get to the real argument. Ed Stetzer thinks online church is bad because it is meant to replace the local church, and if people stop going to their local church they miss out on what “church” really is: “a gathering of believers under the Lordship of Jesus Christ that practices two ordinances, seeks to advance His kingdom, and holds each other accountable in covenant.” The Eucharist is available in online churches, but “it is better done in physical community”. We need churches where “social media enhances rather than excuses community”.

Oh, boy. Where can we start with this?

My approach to a debate like this is always to look for what real people are actually doing. Some of you might prefer to start by checking Stetzer’s Bible references (2 John 12, if you’re wondering), but I’m more interested in finding out if people actually behave the way Stetzer says they do. There’s no point using the Bible and theology to critique a culture if you haven’t taken the time to find out what that culture really is.

Clint Schnekloth makes a similar point in his new book “Mediating Faith”, a theology of the internet written for a Christian audience but based in academic research. According to Clint, “theology is, to a considerable degree, ethnography… ethnography can be excellent Christian theology”. Ethnography is the study of people, through spending time with them, sharing their activities and talking with them, and Clint argues that this is how we should begin our theological study of the internet. The only way to make sense of online churches is through “immersion in the actual context of the virtual world in order to learn the language, participate and be mediated there. In this way, theology can be an exercise in a real ethnographic experience of the virtual rather than a virtual conversation about the virtual one assumes to be real.”

For me, Ed Stetzer’s criticism of online churches shows an absence of ethnography. There’s no sense in this article that Stetzer has bothered to spend time in online churches, talking to the people who use them and finding out what they do and why. He doesn’t seem to be aware of the diversity of online churches (from LifeChurch.tv to St Pixels, i-church and the Cathedral of Second Life), or the diversity of reasons for using them. As a result, Stetzer is left writing about “the virtual he assumes to be real”, and missing what’s really happening.

Stetzer admits three motivations for going to church online: “avoiding traffic”, “illness” or “being in a country where the Gospel is persecuted”. But he thinks those are exceptional cases. People who go to church online might cite those reasons, but what they are really doing is “avoiding (intentionally or unintentionally) real community.” Maybe those are motives for some – illness certainly is – but the churchgoers I’ve spoken to are much more interested in exploring new kinds of worship, listening to great preaching and finding opportunities to be creative in serving others. The most common motives I heard in my research were actually based in relationships and community. Online, people can pray together, argue theology, meet believers from around the world, discuss their lives, share their concerns and support each other, all day every day, and those are opportunities that a lot of physical churches actually don’t offer.

Stetzer assumes that online churches are a threat to local churches, a replacement, but in my research I found very, very few people actually acting that way. Almost everyone I spoke to was already attending a local church, and didn’t need anyone to lead them into local community. They had that already, thanks. They were going online because online community added new dimensions to their life and faith. If people did stop attending a local church, they had strong reasons, usually illness or abuse – these weren’t people who could attend a local church, right now, and they certainly hadn’t started attending online just because they were lazy.

Stetzer’s article also tries to compare online church with an idealised, unrealistic vision of local church. We need to share the Eucharist in physical community, he says, because there is more joy in face-to-face conversation than in letter-writing, according to the Bible, and also at his housegroup people cry a lot and hug each other. OK, but crying and hugging are not things that happen during the Eucharist service at any church I’ve attended, and online community doesn’t have much in common with sending a letter 2000 years ago. For a lot of people, attending a local church just isn’t like this at all.

So think of this as a grumpy argument for ethnographic theology. Don’t dismiss people you don’t understand, or idealise your own community so much you can’t see its flaws. If you want to say something about the world, go live in the world for a while, with your eyes open, finding out what people really do and what they care about and why. And when you’re writing theology, prove to your reader that your ideas have some foundation in real experience.

About Tim Hutchings

Tim works at CODEC, a research initiative for the study of Christian communication in the digital age at St John's College, Durham. He studies online churches, online evangelism and other online things, and can usually be found somewhere near the coffee machine. He likes cake, old science fiction book covers and kitschy religious knick-knacks.

15 Comments

I agree with your points, Tim. Those of us who are involved in Anglicans of Second Life (the people Tim means by the Cathedral in Second Life – there are lots of Cathedrals in SL btw) know of many reasons for people to come to our church.

Illness is a possibility, certainly. We have prayed for and with people going through gruelling treatment for cancer when they didn’t have the energy to go to offline church. How many offline churches could be there just an hour before departure to the hospital for surgery to pray with someone? We do have members with other conditions such as agoraphobia, for whom offline church is just not possible. Carers also cannot always leave the house. Online church comes to them rather than they going to church.

Tim may be wrong in thinking that most people in online church are also in offline churches. A fair number are in offline church in my experience but AoSL has a sizeable minority for whom online church is their only church. I agree it would be good if they were connected to an offline church but it may not always be right. If they have had a bad experience (and many have) or they fear experiencing prejudice, or they are just exploring and prefer for the time being to do that in the more anonymous surroundings of online church, that seems fine to me. It is not the intention of AoSL to replace offline church. We are more likely to complement it than replace it. I think there would be a lot of mileage in working cooperatively with offline church. We could provide a lot, especially in areas where there are multiple churches cared for by a single priest.

Before someone equates anonymous with lack of community, I must say I fully agree with Tim that people are connecting online. We laugh together, pray together, carry one another’s burdens and so on. There is often more honesty online than offline. Relationships develop that are deep and genuine.

Tim is right. If you want to know how online churches work, or even IF they work, join up, join in, and find out. Only then should you give an opinion. Some people have been very surprised at what they have found, having been initially sceptical.

As my mother is on a ventilator and feeding tube, and i am her care giver I could not be away from here long enough to go to Church Locally.I think Tim is assuming that everyone CAN, simply get up and make the choice to attend church locally.
This is not true, there are the sick,There are those who like myself are care givers, there are those who are only off at tie regular churches meet, There re those with a different type of illness,afraid to go to a regular church There are the disenfranchised and possibly some disfellowshipped who are not welcome at their local church despite the fact that all are welcome in the house of God.
I know in the past,I and another searched diligently for a true church.On Line so we could attend together( Distances being too far to to allow for going to church together in a regular church of any denomination). Luckily I found the Anglican cathedral which is based solidly in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and which holds regular services, Its not just a pretty place but a gathering of kindred souls who come together for whatever reason to worship God and his son together.
Coming together. From near and far.Is not that what community is all about?>
Is not that the mission of the Church wherever it may be?

HI Ailsa. Thanks for your comments! I do agree that a minority of online churchgoers don’t attend a local church (perhaps I exaggerated in the post when I said “very very few”, instead of just “a minority”) – but critics of online church often assume that everyone is quitting their local church just because online is easier and less accountable, and I’m pretty sure we can both agree that’s nonsense!

In my experience, those who do not attend a local church had mostly left a long time ago, and then discovered online church as a safe way back into Christian community. People weren’t joining online churches and then leaving local churches, except in some cases of illness. Does that sound right to you?

Yes, I would say your assessment is right Tim. I have had many conversations with people who attend online church and can’t recall anyone saying that they had left offline church in favour of online. I really do think we can complement one another.

At times I believe the choice for some individuals will be online church or no church at all. I would much rather they had some church and the community that goes with it, than no church at all. God can still work through any medium or directly, unmediated even by the words or actions of another person, of course.

Totally agree. Of all the examples I know of, very few left in-person for online. But online church services are a great way for people to find a safe and non-threatening way back into Christian community. I was excited to learn yesterday that my church’s Internet campus has seen 35 decisions for Christ recently since we moved beyond streaming to fully participatory online church experience! Virtual may not be the same experience as live & in-person, but those folks weren’t planning to come to that anyway. Now they’ve got a reason to.

The argument by Ed undermines the experience of the people, like me, who attend online church.

Attending online church didn’t replace my need to attend a “real” church, rather it helped me grow even more as a christian. I am basically a christian by name yet atheist in belief before I attended an online church. The online church that I attended helped me know the love of God that I, in my experience, didn’t really see in offline church. In online church, i didn’t see plastic smiles from ushers, choreographed handshakes, and a shiny perfect service, I saw a community that didn’t need to be so perfect yet worshiped the perfect. They of course could not offer the usual hugs nor share the cup of the covenant but they offered a place where I could get to re-know Christ without the pressure to conform to the congregation.

Of course, offline church cannot and must not be a replacement to offline church. But it acts as an extension of the ministry that reaches people of whose chance of going to church is 1 out of infinity. It serves as a way for the unchurched to get to know and grow in Christ and encourage them to grow more in a nearby community. It acts as a lighthouse in the sea of the internet, lighting the path to God.

I now attend and am active both on online and offline churches. I am now also am a firm Christ believer.

I have been involved with a variety of forms of online church for over 7 years, and more recently I concluded some research into an evaluation of the impact of an emerging social network on our understanding of self (the social network in question being Second Life).

The research was undertaken using an immersive, pseudo-ethnographic approach to allow personal ‘lived experience’, observations and theological reflection to be used in identifying and understanding some of the impacts. Interesting to read then Clint Schnekloth’s view that “theology is, to a considerable degree, ethnography… ethnography can be excellent Christian theology.” I don’t think ethnography can ever be a substitute for theology; that often tends to lead to a quite shallow theological approach. But I do think that ethnography can provide us with some valuable insights as part of that overall process of theological reflection. I would really like to see much more theological reflection in the commentary on such matters.

I have encountered far too many researchers who parachuted online, asked a series of very sterile questions, and were never seen again. I think that their approach was somewhat flawed, and for several reasons. Therefore I rejoiced to read Tim’s comment that “There’s no point using the Bible and theology to critique a culture if you haven’t taken the time to find out what that culture really is”, but with one proviso, namely that once you have taken that time to find out what the culture (or cultures – more on that later) really is you then do actually begin to use the Bible and theology.

Very often in discussions about social media, online church and online engagement, people talk about culture. I believe that we actually live with the reality of multiple cultures, whether in SL or RL. You only need to wander from one SIM to another in SL to witness that for yourself, or in RL to go from work, to the school, or to home to see different cultures in action. These cultures are shaped by worldviews. So when
Ed says “If a church is not online, then it is not actually engaging the culture. A church needs to be where the people gather and they are online and on social media sites”, for me it would be a little more explicit if he had said if a church is not online it is not fully realising the potential of engaging with the specific expressions of culture we may encounter online. The church shouldn’t seek to communicate with every culture in exactly the same way…theology and mission history surely teach us that lesson? But neither should the church lose sight of what it is. There is always the tension between inculturation and syncretism. If we are not careful we see a descent into syncretism where the baby Jesus is thrown out with the bathwater! I do very much agree with Ed’s comment though that “Social media is a valid ministry of the church. Online community can enhance the physical community.”

People may talk about theology but rarely seem to talk much about ecclesiology and I think a healthy starting point is to begin by asking ourselves “what is Church?” Our
understanding of church will shape our view regarding online church. I also agree with Ed’s comment that church “(among other things) is a gathering of believers under the Lordship of Jesus Christ that practices two ordinances, seeks to advance His kingdom, and holds each other accountable in covenant.” And like Ed I conclude that an online church can embrace the much of that, but it struggles when we begin to do some serious theological grappling with the Dominical sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist. These are available in some online churches, but certainly not all; and theologically I would question the validity of online sacraments. This is discussed at length and in depth elsewhere but the starting point we must begin with regarding the sacraments is what do we understand the sacraments to be? If the sacraments are nothing more than a memorial, not surprising that exponents of such a view may tend to have fewer issues with online sacraments.

When we consider physical engagement and presence, especially in the context of sacramental theology, I tend to ask simple questions. If embodiment was unimportant, why was Jesus incarnated “God made flesh”, why did Jesus have to
die a brutal physical death and why was Jesus physically resurrected? Yes of course people could say that he needed to engage with the culture at the time of his earthly ministry and therefore had to be physically present but doesn’t that kind of limit what God is capable of?

When we begin to talk about virtuality and reality, what do we mean by these terms? The Oxford English Dictionary seeks to define ‘virtual’ as referencing something “that is so in essence or effect, although not formally or actually.” According to Boellestorff, “Virtuality can thus be understood in terms of potentiality; it can be said to exist whenever there is a perceived gap between experience and “the actual.”” He goes on to say “the virtual is opposed not to the real but to the actual.” There is a huge tension between ‘real / actual’ and ‘virtual’ since for many people their experiences in a virtual context have a real impact or effect on them, even if we often have a perception that engaging with technology diminishes reality. An example of this is when people say that (with books) they like to read ‘the real thing’ because
for them somehow the electronic version is less real.

Ed also states that “Ideally, churches will have an online presence, but will strongly encourage life-on-life interaction where social media enhances rather than excuses community.” I think I like that statement. But surely that in itself is surely another motivation to engage with online church going beyond the three key reasons Ed mentions? Tim’s response captures this well. There is though yet another reason why people might go to online church…and that is in an anonymous way to perhaps begin to explore faith in a way that attendance at RL church wouldn’t allow. We must not lose sight of the missional potential we see in online church.

It is good to see these issues being discussed and grappled with. In my encounters with members of Anglicans of Second Life, I have formed friends for life with people from several different countries. I have experienced community, fellowship, honesty, and people being very human – warts and all. I agree with Ailsa that people should seek to engage with that community to find out for themselves.

I’ve been a member of the Anglican Cathedral of Second Life since I got onto SL in ’06, and during that time, it’s been “my church.” I hadn’t been attending a church for a variety of (mostly physical) reasons, and sorely missed the fellowship. When I found SLAngCath, I was home! This is a real church in a way a number of RL churches haven’t been – while RL churches seem to attract hypocrites in large numbers, there seem to be practically none here. We gather together from many countries in a way that has never before been possible, and which prefigures for me the way we’ll meet in Heaven. We leave our physical bodies behind and commune with each other mentally and spiritually, having much more serious theological discussions than I’ve seen in RL church. I don’t know if it’s that people in SL church are there more mindfully, with none of the “see and be seen” that you get in RL, or what, but in RL churches, the old social prohibition against discussing religion in public seems to apply. In some evangelical churches, people will yell out “Amen!” or some such, but that’s not really discussion.

I’ve never met Helene/Ailsa, Able, or Kawyn physically, and probably never will, but I know I can reach out for them when I need them, and they’ll be there. As in Paul’s old churches, the people of SLAngCath can be known by their love.

I have to say firstly I don’t go to church a lot, but when I do go it’s the Anglican Church in Second Life (SL) I want to go to.

Firstly, I feel less alone going to church in SL, because it not only communicates with the “me” inside but I find it more welcoming and inclusive.

I think in real life we are more diffident about talking to strangers, and we also make judgements based on our first impressions. Conversely, the “me” you see in SL is a more direct and one-to-one expression of the person I am.

It takes longer to get to know people properly in real life. Not only that but we can feel we have to dress up for church and it can take longer to get ready to go or we can be put off going.

The place where I do most hugging and crying is SL too. It’s the place where I feel the most sense of community.

I hardly know my neighbours is real life. They are nice people, but we don’t share each other’s lives.

In SL, my best friends are an architect in Venezuela, a retired teacher in Australia, a mother & business owner in England, and an IT worker in the USA. We share a lot – recently all of us in our SL family clubbed together to buy a new pc for one of us who is disabled.

SL isn’t more anonymous or an excuse or a replacement for real life, it’s a different experience, not better or worse ….. and it’s immersivity makes it very different from a lot of other on-line media I think.

So, I wouldn’t compare church in real life with the one I know in SL, they are chalk and cheese I think.

I like church in real life, but it’s not the same thing. Maybe, if I met my real-life priest in SL, it might encourage me to go to his church in real life more – but the thought of that scares me too as he’d be meeting the “real” me in SL.